Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 113

sgtclub · 03-30-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I didn't duck the question. You're wrong. Bilmore's wrong. Hank's wrong.

Count me as one of the pussified liberals. Torture is wrong. Morally, absolutely, completely. It doesn't matter who does it. It doesn't matter what the end is that the torture is supposed to serve. We cheapen ourselves as human beings when we seek to rationalize or condone it. We weaken the very liberties we are fighting to preserve when we abuse the liberties of others.

If you lie down with dogs, you come up with fleas.

If I wasn't being clear enough before, I apologize for the miscommunication on my part.

Why? Why is torture morally wrong and dropping bombs on cities, even if every attempt to minimize collateral damage is made, is not? What is the difference?

Hank Chinaski · 03-30-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

Wanna bet they all have GPS transmitters embedded in their asses?

This is the most constructive thing you've ever posted here. Would you be willing to move to No. Va.? I think you've a future in Covert ops.

bilmore · 03-30-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I guess you're just a better person than I am.

So, we're to adhere to your principle, even though the price to be paid for that adherence won't be paid by you at all, but by the lives of hundreds, or thousands, or more, of other people. It's painless for you, they're all dead, and you get to feel all clean and good and moral.

Seems like a very hollow nobility to me.

Shape Shifter · 03-30-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is the most constructive thing you've ever posted here. Would you be willing to move to No. Va.? I think you've a future in Covert ops.

I'm already there. We're watching you, Chinaski.

bilmore · 03-30-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm already there. We're watching you, Chinaski.

Well, do a better job than you guys did on that WMD thing.

taxwonk · 03-30-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why? Why is torture morally wrong and dropping bombs on cities, even if every attempt to minimize collateral damage is made, is not? What is the difference?

Well, for one thing, we can't avoid fighting wars. We can, and by law are required to, avoid deliberately inflicting pain on specific individuals in an effort to coerce them to divulge information.

Let me repeat this. Torture is unlawful. It is prohibited by the laws of the United States. It is prohibited by international law. It is prohibited by the Constitution. Engaging in acts of war, if properly sanctioned, is lawful.

As I noted before, there is no point in getting into the moral aspects with you, as you are apparently not equipped to recognize them.

Shape Shifter · 03-30-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, do a better job than you guys did on that WMD thing.

There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by Chinaski since 9/11. And you can't really blame us for his posts.

taxwonk · 03-30-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
So, we're to adhere to your principle, even though the price to be paid for that adherence won't be paid by you at all, but by the lives of hundreds, or thousands, or more, of other people. It's painless for you, they're all dead, and you get to feel all clean and good and moral.

Seems like a very hollow nobility to me.

It's not my principle. It's the principle on which this nation was founded.

And I'll take my hollow nobility any day over your "shit happens." You sit here, safe at home, and pretend that it's okay for us to play God and choose who will live and who will die, vainly believing that you have the power to determine the fate of "hundreds, or thousands, or more."

Seems like a hollow being to me. Devoid of soul, conscience, and compassion. And I'm not being at all partisan.

taxwonk · 03-30-2005, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by Chinaski since 9/11. And you can't really blame us for his posts.

But if you had the stones to torture him I bet you could make him stop.

Hank Chinaski · 03-30-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
But if you had the stones to torture him I bet you could make him stop.

Shape Shifter tortures me over and over, and its had no effect- you guys are right. Remember I was a supporting player in the Slave Sagas

Sidd Finch · 03-30-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
30 detainees were just released from Gitmo because the military's own internal process, in which they did not even get to see and rebut the evidence against them or have a lawyer, determined there was no basis for holding them.

So, how do you feel about the torture that's been directed at these 30 guys? Should we explain to their children that this is the way the US operates when its at war, but it doesn't represent what they should expect from Democracy?

Well, y'know. Omelettes, eggs, and all that.

sgtclub · 03-30-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, for one thing, we can't avoid fighting wars. We can, and by law are required to, avoid deliberately inflicting pain on specific individuals in an effort to coerce them to divulge information.

Let me repeat this. Torture is unlawful. It is prohibited by the laws of the United States. It is prohibited by international law. It is prohibited by the Constitution. Engaging in acts of war, if properly sanctioned, is lawful.

As I noted before, there is no point in getting into the moral aspects with you, as you are apparently not equipped to recognize them.

You are doing a bait an switch. The only thing we are talking about is the morality of the issue. The legality of the issue is not in question.

We can certainly avoid fighting wars. The French have done it through history.

I think you don't want to talk about the morality of the issue, because you cannot rationally distinguish killings or other brutal acts as part of war, on the one hand, and torture, on the other hand, other than by pointing to what is currently "legal."

It seems to me that what we have done in the case of war is to engage in a balancing test, where we have determined that the horrors and evils we inflict are outweighed by the benefits. I am only suggesting that the same anaysis should be done for torture. I can see no other rational weigh to distinguish among these horrors.

Hank Chinaski · 03-30-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's not my principle. It's the principle on which this nation was founded.

And I'll take my hollow nobility any day over your "shit happens." You sit here, safe at home, and pretend that it's okay for us to play God and choose who will live and who will die, vainly believing that you have the power to determine the fate of "hundreds, or thousands, or more."

Seems like a hollow being to me. Devoid of soul, conscience, and compassion. And I'm not being at all partisan.

Michael Corleone: My father is no different than any other powerful man, like a President or Senator.

Kay: Michael, do you realize how naive you sound. Presidents and Senators don't have people killed.

MC: Who's being naive Kay?

bilmore · 03-30-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You sit here, safe at home, and pretend that it's okay for us to play God and choose who will live and who will die, vainly believing that you have the power to determine the fate of "hundreds, or thousands, or more."

You haven't been watching TV, have you?

There are groups of people out there who are looking to kill huge swaths of other people for various perceived indiscretions, like not following the right nutjob's version of what some god told him we should all do, or not willingly granting supreme authority over all to the whacko leader they've chosen for themselves. We've stepped in to slow that killing down. The "power to determine the fate" of tons of people is derived from whatever power we can muster to stop those whackos and nutjobs, and I can testify that that power is there. "Vainly"? Right. You're like Adder, standing firm that Saddam and his ilk constituted inconveniences to some people.

So, when we try to stop these killers, are we playing god? Does that fit your definition? Do you perceive that everything we do to try to stop these killers is somehow morally equivalent to the actions and motivations of these killers? If you want to talk about soul, compassion, and conscience, and have people keep a straight face around you, consider that what we're doing ranks far higher on the moral scale then the actions of the Baathists trying to re-seat the murderous dictatorship, or the mullahs looking to rule by their personal vision of gawd, or the simple murderous thieves taking what they can because they can. If that concept staggers you, then your answer to Club about there being no point of communication is right.

Shape Shifter · 03-30-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You haven't been watching TV, have you?

There are groups of people out there who are looking to kill huge swaths of other people for various perceived indiscretions, like not following the right nutjob's version of what some god told him we should all do, or not willingly granting supreme authority over all to the whacko leader they've chosen for themselves.

Uh . . .